Tuesday, July 12, 2011

I described here how the Human Genome project and high throughput technologies have revealed levels of complexity evolutionists hadn’t even dreamed of, revealing yet another monumental failure of evolutionary theory. One example of the discovery of new levels of complexity is the “guardian of the genome,” protein p53 which binds to thousands of DNA sites to control transcription, processes RNA, binds to proteins to modify activity, and undergoes alternative splicing to take on nine different forms:

Even for a single molecule, vast swathes of messy complexity arise. The protein p53, for example, was first discovered in 1979, and despite initially being misjudged as a cancer promoter, it soon gained notoriety as a tumour suppressor — a 'guardian of the genome' that stifles cancer growth by condemning genetically damaged cells to death. Few proteins have been studied more than p53, and it even commands its own meetings. Yet the p53 story has turned out to be immensely more complex than it seemed at first.

In 1990, several labs found that p53 binds directly to DNA to control transcription, supporting the traditional Jacob–Monod model of gene regulation. But as researchers broadened their understanding of gene regulation, they found more facets to p53. Just last year, Japanese researchers reported that p53 helps to process several varieties of small RNA that keep cell growth in check, revealing a mechanism by which the protein exerts its tumour-suppressing power.

Even before that, it was clear that p53 sat at the centre of a dynamic network of protein, chemical and genetic interactions. Researchers now know that p53 binds to thousands of sites in DNA, and some of these sites are thousands of base pairs away from any genes. It influences cell growth, death and structure and DNA repair. It also binds to numerous other proteins, which can modify its activity, and these protein–protein interactions can be tuned by the addition of chemical modifiers, such as phosphates and methyl groups. Through a process known as alternative splicing, p53 can take nine different forms, each of which has its own activities and chemical modifiers. Biologists are now realizing that p53 is also involved in processes beyond cancer, such as fertility and very early embryonic development. In fact, it seems wilfully ignorant to try to understand p53 on its own. Instead, biologists have shifted to studying the p53 network, as depicted in cartoons containing boxes, circles and arrows meant to symbolize its maze of interactions.

The p53 protein is encoded by about 1200 nucleotides in the TP53 gene which spans about 20,000 nucleotides. The 1200 nucleotides are divided amongst several exons (coding regions) which are separated by introns (non coding regions). To create p53 the cell transcribes the TP53 gene, edits the transcript, and translates the edited transcript into the corresponding sequence of about 400 amino acid according to the genetic code.

Evolutionists do not know how the highly skilled p53 protein evolved. How did one protein gain all those different functions? Evolutionists do not know. In fact they don’t know how proteins, in general, could have first evolved. Evolutionists also don’t know how genes, in general, evolved. Nor do they know how introns evolved. Nor do they know how the fantastic process of protein synthesis (gene transcription, transcript editing and translation) evolved. They don’t know how the DNA code evolved.

p53 is just one example of biology’s complexity that defies evolution. And yet this is how evolutionists typically respond:

Well, one could predict that if TP53 is involved in so many systems / pathways that are fundamental to a host of cellular processes including (but probably not limited to) cell cycle regulation, apoptosis and senesence, then it had to have originated around the time that the simplest forms of multi-cellular life emerged and therefore would be present in the simplest of life forms as well as the most complex. One could also predict that the separate genetic changes that may have affected this gene as different lineages diversified would allow scientists to generate some sort of phylogeny maybe? Perhaps, TP53 may even be part of a larger 'super-family' of genes that have homologs and orthologs throughout multi-cellular life forms that also, through genetic analyses, appear to form some sort of hierarchy... If only scientists could find such a thing huh.

Oh yeah, the p53/p63/p73 superfamily. Highly conserved genes found all the way up from C.elegans to H.sapiens.

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/7/a001131.full

I'd post more links but don't see the point. The info is out there for those who wish to see it. No amount of linking to primary data or peer-reviewed journal articles will help those that don't want to.

CH, p53 is not a good example if you want to poke a stick at the ToE.

In other words, if TP53 has so many fundamental functions then it must have originated early in evolutionary history. And indeed it is found everywhere from worms to humans. And if TP53 has been evolving all this time then it should roughly fit the expected evolutionary pattern. And it does. And finally, such a widespread and important gene should be part of a super family of genes. And indeed it is. So the science is obvious, isn’t it? We can acknowledge the data, or willfully ignore the obvious.

It is frightening how intelligent, knowledgeable, well-educated people can be so self assured about bad science. In fact these three predictions mentioned by the evolutionist are phony. If genes did not appear in super families evolution would be perfectly happy. Likewise, if genes fell into unexpected, contradictory patterns it would pose no problem. And if TP53 was not ubiquitous evolution would be unharmed.

How do I know this? Because it happens all the time. These predictions are more like Lakatos’ auxiliary hypotheses. Convenient explanations of the data that are gratuitous and may be forfeited. They are the protective belt that shield the theoretical core. Serviceable as “proofs” when correct, the stuff of good solid scientific research when incorrect.

This response above is typical. These soft “predictions” are touted as no-brainer, compelling proof-texts of evolution. But in fact these “predictions” are repeatedly falsified.

And even if they were true the reasoning amounts to the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Geocentrism isn’t true because the sun traveled across the sky today.

What is perhaps most astonishing, however, is the steadfast faith of evolutionists in the face of utter failure. Forget about evolution’s soft “predictions” that are consistently wrong, or the evolutionist’s faulty logic. Those breakdowns are minor compared to evolution’s inability to provide anything beyond sheer speculation on just how life is supposed to have arisen by itself.

As stated above, the Human Genome project and high throughput technologies revealed levels of complexity evolutionists hadn’t even dreamed of. Not that this was new news—even in Darwin’s day it was clear biology was fantastically complex. Darwin provided no plausible rationale for its evolution, and nothing has changed since 1859.

Evolution is an utterly ridiculous, religiously-motivated notion that has no scientific standing. This is not hyperbole but rather a simple description of the facts. Religious proofs underwrite the theory in spite of the obvious scientific evidence. Evolution is not a minor error. It is not a theory that merely needs some tweaks and adjustments. It is an absurdity that is obvious to anyone with common sense. Religion drives science and it matters.

"Evolution is an utterly ridiculous, religiously-motivated notion that has no scientific standing. This is not hyperbole but rather a simple description of the facts. Religious proofs underwrite the theory in spite of the obvious scientific evidence. Evolution is not a minor error. It is not a theory that merely needs some tweaks and adjustments. It is an absurdity that is obvious to anyone with common sense."

Funny how virtually the whole of the scientific community is against you here. You are the drummerboy for whom everyone else in the band was marching out of step.

You demonstrate not the slightest evidence that you understand what science is, let alone evolution.

Here are a few hints:

1) Science assumes naturalism.

2) Evolution ALSO assume naturalism (because it is a SCIENCTIFIC theory)

3) Assuming naturalism is a scientific thing to do.

4) Not assuming naturalism is an unscientific thing to do.

5) If you do not assume naturalism then you are not doing science.

6) ToE is no different to any other SCIENTIFIC thoery in assuming naturalism.

7) Naturalism is a really important assumption for performing science.

8) You cannot perform science without assuming naturalism.

Back to the OP, saying 'Biology is complicated - more so than we expected' does not undermine ToE either. Every scientific theory leads to more research, more discovery, more understanding. It is no criticism at all that a scientific theory does not already explain everything in advance. As a scientific theory is followed, it is inevitable tweaked and ammended here and there. These tweaks are not fatal flaws, however much you want them to be.

Neither does empty rhetoric undermine ToE. Calling it's flaws 'just obvious to anyone with common sense' does not make it true. You are blinded by your own religiously-motivated biases, which makes it all the more hilarious that you use religion as an accusation against those you seek to attack.

Allowing for miracles in science would be the unscientific and religious thing to do. And it is the position YOU take, not those you attack.

Well, I guess that told me. Problem I have Mr.H is that even if I were to accept your points I still can't think of any credible alternative. The OT/genesis/creation is obviously a fairytale, or at best an allegory. I don't see how ID is anything other than a kind of anthropomorphic projection that will probably be as guilty of everything you claim is wrong with ToE. I'll just let you get on with your research and keep checking back to see if you have an alternative for me. Still, it was nice to get an OP all to myself, thanks, and have a nice day everyone.

CH: I described here how the Human Genome project and high throughput technologies have revealed levels of complexity evolutionists hadn’t even dreamed of, revealing yet another monumental failure of evolutionary theory.

Again, scientific theories are not prophecy. Predictions are based on a theory's underlying explanation for phenomena. As such, it's unclear why you expect predictions of any theory to take into account an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel effects that could effect our observations.

Could it be that evolution intersects what you think to be divine revelation of God's supposed role in creating life - therefore, you interpret its predictions as if they were prophecy as well? If so, it would seem your objections are yet again based on smuggled assumptions which are not implied.

If evolution doesn't "fit" the God sized hole in your current world view, then you consider it a failure. If predictions of evolutionary theory fail to meet your implicit criteria as a prophetic empirical mandate, then it must be false.